Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The Case For "The Case Against Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Classes": A Response To Ferris
The Case For "The Case Against Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Classes": A Response To Ferris
Direct all correspondence to: John Truscott, Department of Foreign Languages and Literature,
National Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu, Taiwan; e-mail: truscott@fl.nthu.edu.tw.
111
112 TRUSCOTT
on everything now known about the subject, is preferable to the existing or-
thodoxy.
Ferris (1999) strongly objects. She welcomes critical discussion of correction,
but asserts that no one should argue for its abandonment. She even goes so far as to
say that, because I did so, my paper poses a danger to students (p. 9). This claim
turns the logic of the situation on its head-the real problem is the almost complete
dominance of the orthodox view, not the existence of a dissenting voice.
The thinking behind this logical reversal is the topic of a later section of this
paper. I first examine-and reject-Ferris’s specific criticisms of my case
against grammar correction. For this part of the paper (the first three sections), I
largely follow her organization (skipping parts that do not contain any challenge
to my case), so that readers can make a point-by-point comparison between the
case for grammar correction and the case against it. I then give a summary of the
evidence and arguments, before turning to the powerful bias to which the case for
correction owes much, if not all, of its continuing appeal. I then briefly consider
the future prospects for correction and conclude by returning to the issue of
choice in language teaching.
what specific research it refers to, what exactly was done in this research, what
sorts of results were obtained, and what-in Ferris’s judgment-onstitutes
meaningful evidence. But none of this information is provided.
Moreover, the rest of the paper indicates that alleged evidence supporting cor-
rection actually plays little or no role in the case for correction. At one point,
such evidence is described as “scant” (p. 5). Another part of the paper (p. 7) im-
plies that research goes against the intuition that correction is effective. At two
points in the conclusion (pp. 9, lo), Ferris criticizes me for drawing a strong con-
clusion from inadequate or inconclusive evidence, but does not suggest that any
of the evidence is inconsistent with my conclusion. Apart from the original
“mounting research evidence” statement, I can find only one point at which she
says, or even hints, that correction is supported by research evidence. This is the
undeveloped claim that Fathman and Whalley (1990) and Lalande (1982) pro-
vide support (see discussion below).
It seems reasonably safe, then, to conclude that the claim of evidence for good
correction is not a meaningful part of the case for grammar correction. But the
meaning of the claim remains unclear, especially the question of what, in Ferris’s
judgment, constitutes evidence. The claim is accompanied by a list of five
sources, in which can be found “reviews and specific suggestions” related to it
(p. 4). These might be expected to provide some clarification. I have searched
through three of these sources-Ferris (199.5) Ellis (1998), and Bates et al.
(1993)-and found nothing that constitutes meaningful evidence. But they may
help to clarify the issue of what counts as evidence.
Ferris (1995) did not refer to any published sources that claimed to provide
evidence for correction. Ellis (1998) cited only one study that bears any resem-
blance to Ferris’s description-Doughty and Varela (1998).i This work mixed
oral and written correction, with a strong emphasis on the former. So it could not,
even in principle, support claims about the effectiveness of correction in writing
classes. Moreover, the authors acknowledged that their results were weak for the
written side. It was only for students’ speaking ability that they made any strong
claims of success. For a response to these claims, see Truscott (1999).
In the book by Bates et al. (1993) I would guess that the relevant references
are Cardelle and Como (198 l), Fathman and Whalley ( 1990), and Lalande
(1982). I argued previously that none of these constitutes evidence for correction
(Truscott, 1996, pp. 339-340). For the latter two sources, see also the discussion
below. Ferris does not offer any response to my arguments.
points are (a) there is substantial variation in conditions among the studies I cited,
so no generalizations can be made from those studies; (b) I exaggerated the sig-
niticance of studies supporting my thesis; and (c) I illicitly dismissed contrary
evidence.
As Ferris (1999) notes, the studies I cited as evidence against correction dif-
fered in the types of subjects they used, as well as in their instructional methods
and their research designs. Because of these differences, she argues, one cannot
make any generalizations from this work.
I would argue for the opposite view: That generalization is most reasonable
when similar results are obtained under a variety of conditions (as they are in this
case) and least reasonable when the conditions are similar for all the studies.
When consistent results are obtained under consistent conditions, one can reason-
ably argue that these specific conditions are responsible for these results. But
when similar results appear in widely differing circumstances, no such explana-
tion is available; the phenomenon is a general one. I cannot understand an argu-
ment that asserts the opposite; in particular, the argument that variable conditions
among the correction studies preclude any meaningful generalizations from their
findings.
Another problem with that argument is that it includes three studies that I said
were not evidence: Cardelle & Corn0 (1981); Fathman & Whalley (1990); and
Lalande (1982) (Truscott, 1996, pp. 339-340). (For the latter two sources, see
also the discussion below.) What the argument actually says, then, is that there is
great variability within a set of studies that includes (some of?) the ones I used
and some that I did not use, so no generalizations can be made from the ones I
used. There is also some confusion about the length of the various studies. I did
not use any that “consisted of a ‘one-shot’ experimental treatment” (Ferris, 1999,
p. 5), nor did one-semester studies represent the upper extreme-some of them
were considerably longer (Robb et al., 1986; Dvorak, as described by VanPatten,
1986, 1988).
Ferris (1999) also accuses me of overstating the evidence that correction is in-
effective. She supports this claim by looking at only one of the sources I cited-
Kepner (1991). So even if one accepts her description of the way I used this study
(I do not), only the most sympathetic of readers would consider this adequate
support for the accusation.
Interestingly, the claim that I overstated the significance of this study is based
entirely on the fact that it did not involve revision, a point that I explicitly noted
(Truscott, 1996, p. 335). Moreover, journal writing (the target of the corrections)
GRAMMAR CORRECTION 115
Ferris (1999) gives three reasons for continuing the practice of grammar correc-
tion. I will consider each of them in turn.
Students’ Attitudes
The first reason that Ferris (1999) proposes for continuing to correct is that
students believe in correction and want to receive it, so teachers should give it to
them. I believe I have already provided an adequate response to this familiar ar-
gument (Truscott, 1996, pp. 359-360). I will not repeat my earlier comments
here, but rather expand on them.
The issue of teachers’ influence on students’ beliefs is especially worthy of
further discussion. How much of students’ false faith in correction is due to the
reinforcement it receives from their teachers? To some extent, the argument from
students’ beliefs is circular: By using correction, teachers encourage students to
believe in it; because students believe in it, teachers must continue using it. It
would be interesting to see how many teachers have seriously tried correction-
free instruction and, especially, how many of those who use this argument have
done so. If they do, they might well find that their students are not nearly so set in
their ways as many authors would have us believe.
My own experience is with students who come to my classes firmly convinced
that grammar correction is an essential part of language learning, in no small part
because their teachers have been giving them that message for as long as they can
remember. But my correction-free approach neither produces student rebellions
nor leads to signs of frustration or lack of motivation or confidence in learners.
By all indications, including end-of-semester evaluations, these students are
quite happy with the course, considerably happier, in my judgment, than were
students in past years when I did correct. I know of no reason to think the situa-
tion would be different for other teachers who choose to try correction-free
teaching.
this argument is that it simply assumes that correction will reduce these errors. I
have argued at great length that this assumption is unjustified.
Self-Editing
The third argument offered by Ferris ( 1999) involves the development of self-
editing ability. I have already provided a detailed response to the idea that correc-
tion is helpful for self-editing (Truscott, 1996, pp. 347-349). The exact relation
between my comments and this argument is difficult to judge, partly because Fer-
ris does not address these comments and partly because I have a hard time decid-
ing what exactly the claim is.
The self-editing argument combines grammar correction and strategy training,
making no distinction between them, so the role that is being claimed for correc-
tion is left unclear. Correction (plus strategy training?) allegedly provides stu-
dents with the knowledge necessary for self-editing, but it is not clear what sort
of knowledge is being referred to or why it would develop if and only if students
receive grammar correction. This argument appears to beg the question of whether
correction is effective. An additional problem is that the argument seems to refer
not to grammar correction as a general practice, but only to one specific variety
that is used for one definite purpose, possibly for specific types of students at a
given point in the learning process.
This argument is difficult to interpret, so I cannot be sure that I have re-
sponded adequately. But it does not appear to contain anything about grammar
correction that I have not already discussed.
For large portions of the case against grammar correction, Ferris (1999) either
accepts my points or declines to challenge them. First, she agrees that correction
is unpleasant for teachers and, similarly, offers no challenge to my argument that
it has harmful effects on students’ attitudes. Her only comment is the suggestion
that teachers should make students even more aware of the importance of avoid-
ing or eliminating mistakes.
Ferris does not challenge my argument that correction leads students to
shorten and simplify their writing to avoid being corrected, thereby reducing
their opportunities to practice writing and to experiment with new forms. In fact,
the suggestion that teachers should make students more aware of the importance
of avoiding mistakes, if carried out, is likely to exacerbate the problem.
Ferris accepts the point that correction absorbs enormous amounts of teachers’
time and energy. In fact, she strengthens it considerably by stating that teachers
must acquire a thorough knowledge of linguistics and of methods for teaching
118 TRUSCOTT
grammar and must obtain extensive practice in applying this knowledge. She
also points out the time and energy required in teacher-training programs to help
teachers learn to correct more effectively and agrees that different types of errors
require different forms of correction, with the implication that teachers need to
spend even more time mastering the practice.
Ferris states that effective correction requires teachers to keep track of their
students’ most serious and most frequent errors (apparently for each individual
student) and correct those errors specifically. The time and energy required for
this work is clear, especially for those teachers who must deal with large numbers
of students. Finally, she leaves unchallenged the claim that students who would
benefit from grammar correction must also spend a great amount of time and en-
ergy on it and that this devotion will detract from other aspects of their learning.
Thus, the part of my argument about the harmful effects of grammar correction is
almost entirely unchallenged. In fact, it is stronger after Ferris’s discussion than
it was before.
She also accepts or declines to challenge large portions of the argument that cor-
rection is ineffective. There is no discussion of my general theoretical point that ef-
fective correction would have to be based on an understanding of complex learning
processes, rather than relying on simplistic ideas of transferring information from
teacher to learner, as it currently does. Nor is there any attempt to deal with the
problems created by developmental sequences or with the issue of pseudoleaming.
For the practical problems with grammar correction that I discussed in my paper,
she seems to accept my view of the many problems faced by students, stating only
that teachers must somehow recognize and deal with them.
These largely uncontested portions of my argument make up a significant part
of the case against grammar correction. Even if everything else I said were false,
these points by themselves would make a strong case for my thesis. Thus, even
without examining the criticisms Ferris does make, I can conclude that the case
against grammar correction remains valid.
licitly dismissed evidence against my thesis. But this claim is left entirely unsub-
stantiated, and the supporting arguments I did provide in my paper are not ad-
dressed by Ferris.
Another point of contention concerns the three reasons Ferris (1999) gives for
continuing the practice of correction. The first simply repeats an old argument,
that students believe in and want correction, without addressing the response I al-
ready made to that argument. The second reason rests on the unjustified assump-
tion that correction is effective. The third claim, about the relationship between
correction and self-editing, also ignores the comments I have already made on
the subject, is difficult to interpret, probably depends on the assumption that cor-
rection is effective and, even if valid, seems to be relevant only to one specialized
use of correction.
So what is left of the case fir grammar correction in L2 writing classes? Little
more than the lingering pro-correction bias. But this bias remains powerful. It
usually expresses itself in an extremely strong and usually implicit assumption
about the burden of proof in the correction debate. On this assumption, the case
for correction and the case against it do not enter the debate on an equal foot-
ing-far from it. Instead, those who reject correction are expected to produce an
absolutely conclusive case that it is always a bad idea, while those who support
correction need only raise doubts about the case against it. Until these doubts
have been eliminated, teachers should continue using the technique, and using it
very generally.
This assumption is rarely made explicit, so discussion of it is difficult. But it
forms the implicit core of many pro-correction arguments and no doubt makes a
very large contribution to the common beliefs that teachers must correct grammar
errors and that there is no serious alternative to this method. This assumption,
therefore, must be brought out into the open, where it can be examined rather
than simply assumed. Ferris’s response provides a good opportunity.
Elsewhere in her paper, Ferris hints at another possible defense, stating that
the evidence is inconclusive, so I should not have suggested the elimination of a
practice that students want and teachers strive to perfect (p. 9). I have already
dealt with the argument from the perspective of students’ attitudes about correc-
tion. The fact that teachers work diligently on correction technique does not put
the burden of proof on the anti-correction side, as this argument suggests. It
would make far more sense to see this great expense of time and energy as a rea-
son for abandoning the practice until such time as research has conclusively
shown that this expense is justified.
Another apparent defense of the bias comes from the existence of pro-correc-
tion intuitions (Ferris, 1999, pp. 7, IO). I have already responded to this idea
(Truscott, 1996, pp. 341-342, 357 and, to some extent, the entire section, pp.
341-354), pointing out problems with these intuitions and suggesting a number
of reasons why people commonly possess these false intuitions.
The power of the bias is shown by its appearance in other parts of Ferris’s pa-
per, in which its presence is not acknowledged. One of the specific points of the
conclusion, for example, is that issues as important as the use of correction
should not be ruled on hastily. The problem with this admonition is that it is di-
rected specifically against decisions not to correct grammar errors. A decision to
correct is apparently not hasty, nor is a decision to adopt a specific method of
correction. The same idea is expressed in Ferris’s summary statement: My rec-
ommendation to abandon correction is premature. However, according to this
view, recommendations to correct grammar errors, or even to do so in a very spe-
cific manner, apparently are not premature. Similarly, my argument that correc-
tion should be abandoned is described as a “rush, or stampede, to judgment” (p.
9), but this criticism is not applied to arguments in favor of correction, no matter
how judgmental they are.
The bulk of the conclusion is, in fact, an extended presentation of this bias.
The gist of the “plea for restraint” (pp. S-10) is that no one should make any
strong statements against correction. Most people who write on this subject, in-
cluding Ferris, assert that correction is effective and that teachers should provide
it. But these strong pro-correction statements do not draw any calls for restraint.
It is not clear just what the thinking is in these cases. It would seem to be
something stronger and more fundamental than the defenses I considered above.
In any case, rational evaluation of arguments for and against grammar correction
requires that proponents of correction either provide an explicit, coherent defense
of the bias or abandon it. The latter means acknowledging that the existence of
uncertainty does not imply that teachers should correct grammatical errors-
arguments against correction must be evaluated on an equal footing with those
for the practice.
GRAMMAR CORRECTION 121
Ferris is certainly right that many interesting questions remain open. It would
plainly be absurd to claim that research has proven correction can never be bene-
ficial under any circumstances, a position I have never taken, despite Ferris’s im-
plicit claim that I have (Ferris, 1999, p. 5). But nor can one reasonably infer that
the practice should be maintained, in spite of the many good reasons for aban-
doning it, simply because one can imagine future research finding it beneficial
under some as yet unknown circumstances.
A more reasonable move is to acknowledge that grammar correction is, in
general, a bad idea and then to see if specific cases can be found in which it might
not be a totally misguided practice. If and when such cases are identified, correc-
tion might become an appropriate, if strictly limited, tool. It should be remem-
bered, though, that the presence of beneficial effects is not, in itself, sufficient
justification for correction. It must also be shown that these benefits are substan-
tial enough to justify the problems that accompany the practice or that these
problems can be adequately managed.
I support the sort of research program Ferris outlines in her conclusion. I may
‘en participate in it. But the logic of such a program needs to be clarified. The
b l is not to determine whether an adequate case can be made for abandoning
grammar correction-that has already been done. Its purpose should be to search
for those special, hypothetical circumstances under which correction might not
be a bad idea.
Teachers must constantly make decisions about what to do-and what not to
do-in their classes, These decisions are necessarily made under conditions of
uncertainty; research never puts an end to doubt. But the choices still must be
made, and made constantly. So, given the world as it is, the best we can hope for
is that teachers will look seriously at the case against grammar correction, com-
pare it to the case for correction, decide which is stronger, and then incorporate
that decision in their teaching.
I consider this point straightforward. I am not sure how Ferris (1999) feels
about it, especially in view of her disturbing statement (p. 9) that my paper is
dangerous because people in the language-teaching profession might accept its
conclusions without any critical evaluation. In any case, the issue of choice is
central in the debate over grammar correction. The decisions will ultimately be
made not by me or by Ferris or by anyone else who writes about this subject, but
by individual teachers. It is essential that they be presented with both sides of the
question and be allowed the chance to make informed judgments of their own.
My work on this subject will have served its purpose if it gives teachers an op-
122 TRUSCOTT
NOTES
1. Actually, Ellis (1998) discussed an earlier version of the paper. I will con-
sider only the later version, which became available after his paper was published.
REFERENCES
Bates, L., Lane, J., & Lange, E. (1993). Writing Clearly: Responding to ESL Composi-
tions. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Cardelle, M., & Como, L. (1981). Effects on second language learning of variations in
written feedback on homework assignments. TESOL Quarterly 15,215 1-26 1.
Doughty, C., & Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In C. Doughty & J.
Williams (Bds.), Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition (pp.
114-138). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, R. (1998). Teaching and research: options in grammar teaching. TESOL Quarter!y
32, 39960.
Fatbman, A. K., & Whalley, E. (1990). Teacher response to student writing: focus on form
versus content. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second Language Writing: Research Insights for
the Classroom (pp. 178-190). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ferris, D. (1995). Teaching ESL composition students to become independent self-editors.
TESOL Journal 4(4), 18-22.
Ferris, D. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: a response to
Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing 8(l), l-l 1.
Kepner, C. G. (1991). An experiment in the relationship of types of written feedback to
the development of second-language writing skills. Modern Language Journal 7.5,
305-313.
Lalande, J. F., II. (1982). Reducing composition errors: an experiment. Modem Language
Journal 66, 140-149.
Robb, T., Ross, S., & Shortreed, I. (1986). Salience of feedback on error and its effect on
EFL writing quality. TESOL Quarterly 20, 83-95.
Sheppard, K. ( 1992). Two feedback types: do they make a difference? RELC Journal 23,
103-l 10.
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language
Learning 46, 327-369.
Truscott, J. (1999). What’s wrong with oral grammar correction. Canadian Modem Lan-
guage Review 55,437456.
VanPatten, B. (1986). Second language acquisition research and the learning/teaching of
Spanish: some research findings and implications. Hispania 69,202-216.
VanPatten, B. (1988). How juries get hung: problems with the evidence for a focus on
form in teaching. Language Learning 38,243-260.